Tennessee upholds DUI roadblock, in light of its high constitutional standard

Tennessee DUI roadblock satisfied its tough constitutional standards of State v. Downey, 945 S.W.2d 102 (Tenn. 1997). State v. Clark, 2006 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 849 (October 20, 2006):

We note that the ultimate question in this case is whether the third prong of the Downey test weighs in favor of the checkpoint’s reasonableness. The witnesses’ testimony established that the MCSD announced the checkpoint in the local newspaper prior to March 12 and that all vehicles traveling in both directions were stopped at the checkpoint. When traffic became congested, Sergeant Tucker temporarily suspended the checkpoint until traffic cleared and the checkpoint could resume. The MCSD set up signs at each end of the checkpoint to warn approaching motorists; the MCSD used safety cones and marked patrol cars with emergency lights; and officers wore safety vests and carried flashlights, demonstrating that the checkpoint was conducted in a safe manner. All of these factors were enumerated in Downey and weigh in favor of finding that the checkpoint did not violate constitutional requirements. Moreover, Sheriff Lewis’ selecting the location for the checkpoint and the MCSD’s setting up and operating the checkpoint in accordance with predetermined guidelines weigh particularly heavily in the State’s favor. See Hicks, 55 S.W.3d at 533 (stating that “the most important attribute of a reasonable roadblock is the presence of genuine limitations upon the discretion of the officers in the field”); Downey, 945 S.W.2d at 110-11 (stating that “[v]irtually every court has emphasized the importance of limiting the discretion of police officers at the scene”).

According to the predetermined guidelines in this case, officers were to approach stopped motorists, identify themselves, and announce the purpose of the checkpoint. Officers then were required to “release the vehicle without further delay” if they saw no signs of intoxication or to detain any driver suspected of impaired driving. The appellant has made no claim that the checkpoint officers failed to follow these procedures. Therefore, we conclude that the level of intrusion to motorists was minimal in this case and that the stopping of motorists at the checkpoint was reasonable. The trial court properly denied the appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence against her.

Private search of former boyfriend’s place did not involve the Fourth Amendment. The police got into it after it happened. State v. Willis, 169 Ohio App. 3d 364, 2006 Ohio 5754, 862 N.E.2d 906 (2d Dist. 2006).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not filing a suppression motion after he determined that it would not be successful, which it would not have been. Ex parte Jones, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 9563 (Tex. App. – Dallas November 3, 2006).*